From: Mike (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Mar 02 2004 - 18:51:38 MST
To conclude that the jobs that are disappearing are those of people who
don't need them, wouldn't you also have to take into consideration other
data, such as how many people are receiving unemployment, welfare, and
foodstamps? If those numbers have increased as the population has
increased, that might give you a different conclusion. Of course, that
data is skewed, since public assistance benefits are given out for a
limited time, after which the recipients are simply cut off. So then,
you'd want to look at the numbers of people staying in shelters for the
homeless, except many of the shelters are filled to capacity and you'd
miss the numbers of people who sleep on the street.
Then there's the number of UNDERemployed people, who have a college
degree or other qualifications, yet get to say "Would you like fries
with that?" on a routine basis. Yet these people aren't counted as
I could go on, but I think you'd have to agree that more data is
required to come to any serious conclusion, particularly the conclusion
that the people who don't have a job simply don't need it.
And what does any of this have to do with SL4 anyway?
> It _may_ be, that this data shows us, that jobs
> disappearing mostly on the rich side of the population,
> which doesn't need them anyway.
> If the data isn't fake, that's the only logical
> conclusion, I can see.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:46 MDT